So we agree that this is a matter of degree rather than kind.
This whole time you have been arguing, at best, that the degree doesn’t matter (though, you did say once that consuming meat is worse than production, despite the fact that it’s the production that is the problem), and that being a nurse in the private healthcare system in the US is exactly as bad as sniping children in Iraq.
I fail to see much of one between the non-combatant service member and, say, the average US citizen who pays no mind to how their lifestyle and choices impact the world.
One directly contributes to the goals of the most vile military in the world and can’t be substituted by civilians, the other is usually as far removed from contributing to those goals as possible (with the consideration that people in NATO are generally forced to take part in NATO’s economy, but are not forced to be in the military taken into account).
The difference is that I don’t attribute moral condemnation on every person who just so happens to be in the military.
Sure. Some actually do sabotage of the military, like Chelsea Manning.
The vast majority don’t.
The cook serving on a military base is about as responsible for an atrocity that occurs in the middle east as you are responsible for whatever negative outcomes are associated with the way you earn and spend your money.
Lol no. A military cook directly makes sure that the murderers and torturers do not go hungry and are in a perfect condition to murder and torture.
Are you trying to ask what would be the good outcome of a massive labor strike in the US healthcare industry?
No. I asked what would be the good outcome of there being no healthcare workers in the US. The soldiers striking was never in the picture.
The benefits of there being no military in the US are clear and lack cons. The benefits of there being no healthcare workers in the US are dubious.
I get the impression you’re once again trying to excuse yourself of moral blame by saying the producers of animal products are significantly worse than the consumers.
The actual harm in this situation is done to the animals from whom the meat is made. This is done by the producers, rather than by the consumers. Not sure why you think that it’s the other way around.
And no, I don’t believe you have a moral right to be a terrorist.
So, you agree, then, that becoming a USian terrorist for money is inexcusable, and that the rest of the world is in the right to defend itself from them however it sees fit?
This whole time you have been arguing, at best, that the degree doesn’t matter (though, you did say once that consuming meat is worse than production, despite the fact that it’s the production that is the problem), and that being a nurse in the private healthcare system in the US is exactly as bad as sniping children in Iraq.
One directly contributes to the goals of the most vile military in the world and can’t be substituted by civilians, the other is usually as far removed from contributing to those goals as possible (with the consideration that people in NATO are generally forced to take part in NATO’s economy, but are not forced to be in the military taken into account).
Sure. Some actually do sabotage of the military, like Chelsea Manning.
The vast majority don’t.
Lol no. A military cook directly makes sure that the murderers and torturers do not go hungry and are in a perfect condition to murder and torture.
No. I asked what would be the good outcome of there being no healthcare workers in the US. The soldiers striking was never in the picture.
The benefits of there being no military in the US are clear and lack cons. The benefits of there being no healthcare workers in the US are dubious.
The actual harm in this situation is done to the animals from whom the meat is made. This is done by the producers, rather than by the consumers. Not sure why you think that it’s the other way around.
So, you agree, then, that becoming a USian terrorist for money is inexcusable, and that the rest of the world is in the right to defend itself from them however it sees fit?